Soul

[Tex]

I don't know what you mean by quantity isn't material. When there is two chairs, that is two material things existing....do you mean our ability to count is not material? I'm a little confused.

Another thing, how do you suppose kids learned to count and add? Wasn't it through practice and memory. When we have memory of dates, all this you are saying doesn't exist in the brain, only in the soul and is purely a process the soul goes through?

A chair is material. Two chairs are material. One thousand chairs are material. But "2" is not material; "1000" is not material. It functions as an adjective, of which most are relative terms, but "2" actually exists in reality. The example I gave in that first post was with an unbonded oxygen atom. There are "6" electrons in that outer shell. This "6" is very important and exists in reality. The "6" exists within the atom (material) and more specifically with the number of electrons in the outer shell, and while those are material, "6" is not. You cannot take "6" out of the outer shell. You possibly could take out an electron, but you can't take "6". The "6" cannot be touched. It is not material.

Kid's brains must be practiced at counting to make it quick. The soul here does not to all the work. The child receives the immaterial stimuli, quantity, regardless of training, but the brain has to be trained use it. The soul is not a substitute for the brain, and without a healthy brain the ability to count is hindered just like any physical process. A healthy kid with no training will learn to count on their own, but schools certainly hasten the process.

Memory is entirely biological. It is not in the soul. The soul understands immaterials and sends them back to the brain. The soul understands no physical stimuli, only immaterial stimuli.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're not making the case for the immaterial by numbers, but by grammar..lol. Adjectives, therefore the immaterial. No dice. Further, ignoring how simple this all is, you've proposed a situation in which soul or no soul is indistinguishable. Useless. Still waiting for answers to any of those questions.

[Mystic]

But if 6 marbles can be touched, then 6 can be touched, surely you can see that?

And you are stating now the brain does use numbers (like kids learning to count, remembering numbers, etc), but before you were saying it's solely a soul process before (ie. immaterial cannot enter the brain).

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm renaming this thread to "Tex's Tease". Where's the beef?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's immaterial.

[Tex]

But if 6 marbles can be touched, then 6 can be touched, surely you can see that?

You're touching marbles, not 6. You can paint 6 marbles, you cannot paint 6.

And you are stating now the brain does use numbers (like kids learning to count, remembering numbers, etc), but before you were saying it's solely a soul process before (ie. immaterial cannot enter the brain).

Sorry for the confusion; I didn't make myself clear. The brain uses numbers with the soul. They are simultaneously working. Without a soul, there would be no immaterial processing, and therefore no numbers. Without a working brain, any immaterial processing fails. Even if the person was still receiving stimulus, the only thing they could "think" (although that is not a good word for this) would be "2. 6. Good." Nothing actually will happen, and nothing can be applied. If they're not together, issues begin.

If you'd like, one way to think of this is a car and driver (however, technically this is gnosticism which I think it false. It's still an ok way to think about it as long as you don't say, "Tex is the soul, the body is irrelevant"). A car will not move very well without a driver. A driver will not move very far without a car.

[The Grand Nudger]

Poor analogy, I might question it on the grounds of whether or not we actually have a driver (we're not cars after all) - but even If I didn't, whether or not a car moves without a driver is irrelevant, no ones questioning that, the contention is who or what the driver may be. You've failed to establish that this driver is the soul, or that they even exist to drive in the first place. You've failed to propose how this is accomplished, you've asserted that this cannot be accomplished (adjectives) without a soul...but you've failed to explain why (or why numbers are the only adjectives you seem to feel might qualify - what with colors being out, for example). Grammar would be a great exhibit if you intended to establish the existence of language and communication, or of sapience (why a soul is required for any of this when you're comfortable with our brains is a mystery)....how it helps to establish the existence of a soul is something you have consistently failed to explain. Perhaps this is because you don't know how it establishes this?

Is this something that convinces you? If this were shown to be baseless, would your belief in souls be shaken? If not (and I'm guessing not) is it possible that none of this establishes what you hope it would - even to you - that it is more accurately something you settled upon without adequate exploration to buttress a belief you already had - and would continue to hold regardless?

[Mystic]

Ok...I agree thoughts at the end are immaterial and we have a soul....but your whole reasoning was based on that "numbers are immaterial" therefore "brain cannot compute it"...but now you are saying, the brain does compute something immaterial, but you also need the soul to receive that information. You are moving the goal posts from the original argument which has been refuted.

Moreover, us not touching "6" when we touch "6 marbles" is not obvious to me as a sequitor conclusion. Moreover, in a dream, what we are dreaming of is not real. It's imaginative. But you said this doesn't prove a soul existing. So why can't we have imaginary numbers in the world of our consciousness if we don't have a soul?

[The Grand Nudger]

In a nutshell, what - do you imagine- makes numbers different from other descriptors. If we're capable of experiencing other adjectives without invoking souls, why not numbers?

[Tex]

...but your whole reasoning was based on that "numbers are immaterial" therefore "brain cannot compute it"...but now you are saying, the brain does compute something immaterial...

No no no, the brain computes no immaterial. The soul computes nothing material. "The brain uses numbers with the soul" is not to mean that immaterials are processed in the brain, but that the brain and the soul process simultaneously. The soul processes the immaterials and the brain the material.

Moreover, us not touching "6" when we touch "6 marbles" is not obvious to me as a sequitor conclusion.

I actually don't know how to combat this other than repeating what I've already said. The only examples I know with quantity revolve around, "You cannot take a quantity, paint it, and then use it to chop down a tree". If you can touch "6" by touching the marbles, pick up the "6", and leave the marbles.

Moreover, in a dream, what we are dreaming of is not real. It's imaginative. But you said this doesn't prove a soul existing. So why can't we have imaginary numbers in the world of our consciousness if we don't have a soul?

Well, imaginary numbers do exist, but not in reality. Sqrt(-1) doesn't exist ens reale (in reality), but it does exist ens rationis (in the mind). Understanding sqrt(-1) does mean we have a soul, but not for reasons by quantity. Sqrt(-1) is necessary in equations. Understanding equations is beyond the animal soul we've been speaking about, but is rational soul only.